“People don’t become homeless due to lost resources, they become homeless to lost relationships.”

A professor from my previous class connected me with Hans Erchinger-Davis, President and CEO of Lighthouse Mission Ministries (LMM). LMM provides shelter, meals, and supportive services to individuals experiencing homelessness. They aim to offer a safe, welcoming environment while connecting people with resources to help them regain stability and transition into permanent housing. Erchinger has worked in the homeless community for 17 years and is well respected in his field. I looked forward to hearing his valuable insights for conducting interviews, and other information that might prove useful. What he provided thoroughly exceeded my expectations.

We began comparing the differences between the United States and other countries, specifically France, and how homelessness was addressed. Enchringer noted that government programs in France and Italy focus on developing individuals out of their situation while the United States functions more as a warehouse model, only providing basic needs. While those are essential, he states there is only a starting point and often insufficient for their complex needs. To truly help individuals rebuild their lives, they need that relational component. “It’s a different kind of intervention if you’re after the relational component. Yeah, you need to have shelter in a place to stay. But if you’re trying to help people reconcile with their families or say an addicted mother needs to get her kids back from CPS, that’s a different kind of intervention than just giving somebody a house to live in.” This means focusing on fractured familial relationships and supporting individuals in rebuilding their support networks as well as the whole person, and giving them a sense of purpose. He believes that homelessness is not merely a result of loss of resources or material possessions but rather a breakdown of relationships.

He highlights the limitations of defining poverty solely in terms of material lack, such as income, healthcare, housing, and food. According to Erchinger, true poverty encompasses a profound sense of loss, including dignity, self-worth, and voice.

“They’re saying things like they feel lack of dignity, they feel inferior, they feel voiceless, they’ve burned bridges, they feel ashamed, they feel worthless. And it conditions people into a place of hopelessness where they feel like they don’t have a shot at anything.”

By focusing solely on material needs, interventions fail to address the deeper human emotions and experiences that perpetuate homelessness. Erchinger also raises critical questions about the impact of well-intentioned aid efforts. He cites the example of sending donated t-shirts to East Africa, which inadvertently harms the local textile industry. “No matter how many free clothes you give them and how much bottled water you give them, they don’t have the change in their situation.” Instead, he advocates for empowering local communities by supporting their industries, building skills, and providing micro-loans to facilitate self-sufficiency.

 

He emphasizes that people become homeless due to various reasons such as job loss, medical, emergencies, domestic violence, or addiction. And in many cases, they can rely on friends and family for support while they regain stability. But as their situation worsens, oftentimes these connections erode and leave them without a safety net. By the time they seek assistance from organizations, most have lost these critical relationships. This can also be for a variety of reasons, such as burned bridges, familial connections, aging out of foster care, and other circumstances. Without these foundational elements, individuals may struggle to make these positive changes, address, addiction, or engage in personal development. 

Erchinger proposes a more empathetic and holistic approach to tackling homelessness—one that considers the human heart and the restoration of relationships. He advocates for asking individuals experiencing homelessness about their emotions and sense of loss, rather than merely providing tangible resources. By addressing immediate material needs in crisis situations and offering a range of support services, individuals can begin to rebuild their lives and escape the cycle of homelessness. This also means it requires a comprehensive approach that encompasses crisis intervention for emergency situations and a long-term development-focused response for chronic homelessness.  His emphasis on validating and understanding their experience aligns with the psychological first aid training model I studied during this last year, focusing on the losses individuals have faced during their crisis. Through validation, they can build trust and create a foundation for effective support. This means interventionists need to establish connections with individuals to truly understand the unique circumstances.

“It takes having a sense of safety and security to even contemplate making changes in your life, dealing with your addiction, or having the stability to take medication if you know how things are going.. It takes developing a person.” 

This allows support and empowers individuals, and avoids enabling behaviors of perpetuating their situation by doing this. Interventionists can provide the appropriate assistance and help navigate their complex circumstances. “..sometimes they don’t realize it, that they’re in it… So you have to think, okay, what for intervention then? How are you going to address all these complexities? And in my opinion, takes a relationship to do that. You get to know somebody to know what’s going to be empowering for them to get out of the situation or what might be enabled in a negative sense and keep them stuck in their situation and not getting better. One, how do you approach, the issue? Is it just a statistic? This may people come tonight in a bed at the end of the morning. Or do we approach them as people? Because they have different types of needs” Enringer stresses.

Furthermore, Erchinger argues for interventions that address the deeper questions of identity, purpose, and worth. He advocated for interventions that restore dignity, promote personal growth, and empower individuals to contribute meaningfully to their own recovery. The example of the cafe at Erchinger’s base camp exemplifies his approach. By allowing individuals to contribute through chores in exchange for a cup of coffee, the cafe not only provides a sense of dignity but also encourages individuals to feel valued and empowered. 

“One of the golden rules I tell the staff here is to not do things for people that they have the capacity to do for themselves. And it’s way easier. It’s more efficient to just get people’s stuff, the freebies. But the hard work is knowing somebody and knowing the potential and when you’re laying out what is best for them that’s going to empower them and not keep them stuck.”

This approach goes beyond addressing basic needs by promoting personal growth, instilling a sense of worth, and engaging the mind. “They earned their coffee and they feel a sense of dignity. It’s still subsidized and all this, but they feel like they earn this. They just feel better about themselves. And then down the road, they’re like, Well, maybe I earned this. Maybe I should apply for that job. So is it a mutuality? Is there participation? And is it holistic? Is it addressing the whole person, not just a narrow aspect of what it means to be human? And is it thoughtful? It’s not just meeting basic needs, but is it addressing is it engaging the mind? You also don’t just want a bunch of activities. You want to know it has an impact. Is this actually changing something for people? Is it affecting them? Is me passing out socks every day. The same people keep coming back for socks every day. Is that actually helping this person useful or is it just spinning wheels?” This remknded me of a program I had found in Ireland called the Peter McVery Trust . These co-op houses not only provide housing but also opportunities for individuals to acquire skills and contribute to the household.

He laments the decline of mental health institutions in the United States and highlights Italy’s approach, where psychiatrists make house calls, considering the environmental factors that influence individuals’ well-being. He suggests that revitalizing smaller, more home-like mental health facilities could have a significant impact on reducing homelessness, particularly for those with serious mental health challenges. By providing personalized care, considering environmental factors, and offering house calls, mental health professionals can better understand individuals’ unique needs and environments to provide tailored interventions. Instead, he advocates for interventions that instill a sense of dignity, ownership, and mutuality, fostering a holistic approach to addressing homelessness.

Erchinger highlights a disturbing trend: individuals who receive housing without the necessary emotional support and community engagement often face increased vulnerability. He shares the heartbreaking reality that many people die in their apartments after having been housed, often due to isolation and lack of appropriate assistance. This challenges the prevailing narrative that housing alone is the ultimate solution to homelessness. “And even if you’re trying to stay clean, the temptation grows so greatly because of the pain of that relational loneliness. And so people pick up or they never stop to begin with because some of these are the barrier things where it doesn’t matter. They just put you in there and you die. You overdose in there and there’s no one to find you. In fact, there are a couple of cities down where, I think it was Ottawa, Canada, you don’t see these stats hardly anywhere because the main push is housing first. Just get people housing. But people die twice as fast if they’re addicted. They die twice as fast in their apartment than they do if they were still on the street. Erchinger argues that a heart-centered approach is vital, one that recognizes the importance of motivation, relationships, and hope in rebuilding lives. While the “housing first” approach has gained prominence, Erchinger warns against its limitations. Simply providing free apartments without addressing the underlying emotional needs and building relationships does not lead to sustainable change. “Here in Bellingham, we do memorials every month… the reason for death for all the people who are memorializing. It’s all mostly overdoses, and some medical stuff, like heart attacks and things, which come from a lifetime of hard living…These are people that we’ve worked with that have come through the system that we know, from our outreach on the streets to our base camp facility to our recovery programs and aftercare programs. These folks are people we’ve been in a relationship with on some level over the last few years.

When discussing further intervention techniques, Enricher began describing how one model can be tailored or only effective by circumstance. The car camping model in San Diego has shown to be very effective for families but “totally ineffective for non-families, for single people. They get a lot of death and a lot of just relational carnage and brokenness happening.. to have something for families, they’re usually motivated. It’s really a good thing, a good stepping stone”. A program specifically meant for this called the Safe Parking Program in Rose Canyon Lot helps families safety camp at their site. 

The JFS SPP provides clients with essential facilities, staff support, and assigned case managers who offer assistance and referrals. Meals are provided multiple times a week, and clients have access to amenities like a microwave, hotpot, books, and seating areas. Financial literacy, budgeting support, and guidance from a housing navigator are also available. The program prioritizes the social and emotional well-being of clients, creating a sense of community and a safe space where they feel accepted and supported. The relationships formed within the program enable clients to relax and engage in conversations as individuals rather than being defined solely by their unhoused status.You can find more information here.

The point he raises is of paramount importance: while the intervention may prove effective, its success could be contingent on specific circumstances. As someone who has staunchly advocated for the housing first model as a valuable solution, I must admit that I inadvertently overlooked an essential question: when does this approach become less beneficial? Are there situations, i.e. the car example he provided, where it might prove more detrimental to individuals? And, perhaps most crucially, how can we adapt and modify the intervention accordingly?